Quoting: ageresIt's just a line of text or two, isn't it?

It's an extra 11% of vertical space.

The black bars that you're concerned about: it's exactly that much.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LordDaveTheKindThis approach was real 10 years ago. It has changed nowadays

No. They've included the (proprietary) library with their (proprietary) driver, exactly as I said. What they haven't done, and aren't likely to, is help open source projects - like vkd3d or Q2RTX - make any use of that. I'd like it if it were different, but it isn't.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ikirutoI think if Nvidia herself takes on helping the developers of VKD3D, then anything is possible. But this is fantastic. :)

Nvidia had the opportunity to create a means to utilise the DLSS library that they include with their driver in their own open source game, and they explicitly refused to.

It's entirely within their means to be more helpful, but they don't want to; that's why lots of people have a low opinion of them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ageresWhen I was about to buy my first desktop in 2009, I hardly could find a 16:9 FHD monitor. All shelves in stores were full of 1680×1050 only.

:shrug: I went from 1600×1200 to 1920×1200 when LCDs had mostly-as-good colours and viewing angles as CRTs; early LCDs were terrible at both. Cheap LCDs still are.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ageresBetter in what? In videogames you get either a truncated image, or black borders on top and bottom. All videos are 16:9 now, so black borders again. When just using an OS and applications, there isn't much significant difference between 16:9 and 16:10.

16:10 is strictly bigger than 16:9. That's why it's written that way, rather than as 8:5. 1920×1200 has 120 more vertical pixels than 1920×1080; 2560×1600 has 160 more vertical pixels than 2560×1440; 3840×2400 has 240 more vertical pixels than 3840×2160.

16:9 is simply too short for monitors. It only exists for TVs as a compromise between the 1.85 and 2.39 ratios that cinemas used, and the 4:3 that TVs used. Widescreen monitors started as 16:10 so that you wouldn't have to sacrifice crucial vertical pixels for relatively unimportant horizontal pixels going from a 4:3 monitor. Then manufacturers started reusing cheap TV panels in monitors, on the grounds that consumers were more interested in price than functionality.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: damarrinThat is nice. I was talking about Linux only hardware vendors, however.

Nonetheless, you can get a 16:10 laptop with Linux pre-installed from Dell. I agree that it would be better if other manufacturers could provide that as well.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubiOnly in the Precision and XPS lineups I think.

That seems likely. Plus their monitors. I was just saying that there are 16:10 options out there.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: damarrinI wish 16:10 screens would come back. :-(

Dells have 16:10 screens.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LinuxwarperFirst off, any developer tries to make their game work on Linux through Proton is not against Linux. Regardless of how many people has wished for GOG Galaxy and Cyberpunk natively, you can't deny the market share. It's not enough to sustain native development of the scale that Cyberpunk is.

They did all the work to make a native version of the scale of Cyberpunk 2077 already: they developed it for Debian using Vulkan. They just won't sell it to us.

CDPR's involvement in "making it work on Linux through Proton" was bunging Valve a beta key, which cost them literally nothing. Valve wrote an extension for Vulkan to make it work, Valve contributed to Mesa to make it work, Valve hired developers to work on Proton to make it work; CDPR did absolutely nothing.

Developers should be rewarded for their support of Linux gaming, but CDPR haven't given any. Quite the opposite, in fact.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

QuoteOne major issue is with most modern Linux distributions moving to a major Python update, which broke SC Controller. Thankfully, as of the v0.4.8 release that's not so much a problem with the AppImage now working on Ubuntu 20.04 and comparable distributions.

Python 3 has been out for 12 years, and Python 2 has been EOL for a year already. Containerisation is useful in its own right, but using it to limp along with a dead Python version doesn't seem like a great plan for something that's under active development.

View this comment - View article - View full comments